JFK set the goal 8 years out, not less than three to align with his presidential term to try to make himself look good. He also got a lot of feedback from NASA on the timelines of what was possible so the goal wasn't pulled out of thin air.
replyAs someone who worked on Orion I find this comment section hilarious.
replyTell us about the flammable tape and the heat shield and the ECLSS and the power hiccup, about how while Orion has been in development SpaceX has built and deployed Cargo and Crew Dragon 2 and flown 20 crews into orbit, or how it costs six times more than Crew Drahon, so far. Or about the side hatch not opening easily under pressure (Apollo I anyone?). Or the status of the docking system for Artemis II.
replyHow so? Hearing from someone who has worked in this environment would be enlightening.
replyWe're just going off what we read in the news. I'm sure that informed commentary from someone with first-hand knowledge would be interesting.
replyChallenger was pretty directly caused by the Reagan admin pressuring NASA to launch it too, so yes?
replyPoliticians have pressured NASA for launches previously and it has killed astronauts.
JFK set a goal that NASA managed to meet, but it is kind of difficult to see it as a hard deadline considering JFK was dead for years before any of the Apollo launches took place.
replyBut even assuming we do view it as a deadline, the Apollo 1 losses are a pretty good argument that maybe we shouldn't repeat that.
Re: JFK and the 60s, I think the experts were in charge and had the final say on launch decisions with buy-in from all parties. Space exploration is certainly not risk-free.
replyThen you had Challenger, when experts were not listened to, and people died when they shouldn't have.
I don't understand the hostility.
NASA got astronauts killed during Apollo, for some reason people forget about that or think it doesn't count because they weren't flying when it happened. After that they pumped the brakes and reevaluated their approaches, but the whole program remained extremely risky.
replyNASA was also far better funded back then and didn’t have to fight congresspeople and the aerospace giants lobbying them. Things move a lot more quickly when money isn’t a concern and you’re not having to scatter R&D and manufacturing across the four corners of the earth to get congress on board with you.
replydeleted
reply